The feedback I received from Professor Joe boosted my confidence in the clarity of the problem I chose to research on. I had initial concerns because the “problem” doesn't follow the typical two-party argument format. Instead, the ethical dilemma of genetic testing arises due to the difficulty to formulate universally applicable rules for what is ethically the “right thing” to do. I appreciate that I was able to maintain the same focus throughout my research paper, without the need to narrow or broaden the topic significantly. 

Regarding the sources and evidence used in my research paper, I successfully referenced all three sources included in the proposal. However, it's worth noting that I didn't interpret source 2 in the same way as I had presented in the proposal. Source 2 is a research paper which suggested a tension between the statements of the AAP and ACMG. But through my research, I came to see a different perspective. Source 3 highlighted a reconciliation between the two statements, which I found more aligned with my understanding. 

One significant differnce from my proposal was the solution I ultimately provided in my P&S essay. Originally, I proposed prenatal testing as a solution. As I researched and gained deeper understanding of the topic, I concluded that this topic was better suited for a separate investigation rather than serving as a solution to the ethical challenges surrounding genetic testing in youth for adult-onset diseases.

In conclusion, my research proposal served as a solid foundation for my research paper. It accurately identified the problem, maintained a narrow focus, and incorporated valuable sources. However, it also showcased the evolving nature of research, as my interpretation of some sources and the chosen solution shifted during the research process.